Bah, you accuse me of fallacy (which is the only reason I responded to begin with), and you setup straw men. The real argument is whether or not abortion (I'll use your term) is killing (no appeal to emotion here buddy) a living human being. If it *is* killing a living human being, then it should be illegal. If not, then it isn't, nor can it be, murder. Stop splitting hairs with me here please.
We both know that the definition of Murder is (oddly enough) malleable in this regard. In fact, there is currently legal hearings going on in some state (can't remember which) as to whether killing a fetus through abuse of a pregnant woman counts as murder. So don't tell me that the definition of murder is so etched in stone lest you should look like a "screeching moron" (gawd I'm starting to hate slashdotters...).
I believe that a fetus is a living human being, from inception on. Therefore, in my mind, it is rightly called murder if you kill it without a trial and court order (a fetus commited of capital crime?).
You believe, I'm guessing, that it becomes a human being at some arbitrary point in it's development? Thus it is not murder to 'abort' it. Or perhaps you actually have no true opinion, and just blindly follow the letter of the law in this case? You've not said, you've only bitched about my use of the word murder.
Heh. I guess it's more up to how the town implements casinos rather than the casinos themselves. However, the fact that one must be careful about allowing casinos suggests an inherent danger to them...
And keep in mind that when we talk about gambling we are talking about online gambling. Area crime is not an issue.
But look at what just having some states with gambling legal has done? Neighboring states are under pressure to leagalize it as well. If the US states that gambling is legal on-line then the pressure will only increase. Individual states will have a harder time holding it back.
Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence. Or do you think people who kill others should he held for "first degree abortion"?
How dare you? You can call killing a fetus anything you like, but from where I come it's called murder. Abortion is simply the nice term for it when it's an unborn baby.
According to dictionary.com: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Where does it say 'so long as they are a certain age'?
You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence".
I didn't think I reinvented anything... Just because you're cold-hearted towards infants and fetuses, doesn't mean I am.
I'll ignore the abortion bit, just to keep on topic.:-)
And anyway, what does this have to do with online casinos? Online casinos solve the location problem pretty easily, don't you think?
The push to allow gambling in-state will be stronger. Not to mention there will be a precedent set by the Federal government that gambling is legal. I'd bet that states will have a harder time keeping it illegal.
My *point* was that not all decisions are made based on religious reasons. If gambling is not legal in a state, but is legal on the internet *from* that state, this represents a huge loop-hole... At some point the states will push back, or there will be pushes to allow it on-shore. Allowing internet gambling will set a precedent...
You mean murder? Not everybody against murdering fetuses is against it for religious reasons. Not to mention a few other vices you mention in your little rant.
Gambling is legal in some areas. But nobody wants the casinos near their house. Got any ideas why? (hint: crime rates sky-rocket around a casino). This is a big issue in Massachusetts lately. Some people want the casinos as a way to increase state revenue, but they can't find any town willing to allow a casino.
Often overreaction and misinterpretation are used to further personal agendas or even vendettas. How many scapegoats (on one side) and poster children (on the other) does it take to promote a local politician to state Senator?
That's a very good point. Often times a 'loner' or 'unusual child' is held up as something inherently wrong for no greater reason than he/she looks different. However, I think the over-reaction is bad, whereas the original act of monitoring is not. Like all the discussions here about how P2P is legal, but sharing illegal things is not. I'd like to see something in the 'contract' signed that says any information gathered is the property of the child's parents, and not the school.
Tell me, how did parents control the web-browsing habits of children in the 1700's? If it didn't exist, there was no *need* to monitor it...
I actually rather agree with you on the trust angle. You seem to think I wish to key log everything and then rummage through it every night to see what dirt a child is doing... I'm saying that in the case of the schools doing it, it's their way of letting children know they're being watched so they'd better not do anything wrong. And if the school happens to find something disturbing (picture two students IM'ing each other about another school massacre), they can react on it.
I never said 'rely on the keystroke logger'. Where did you read that? It's "yet another tool" for parents. You can't watch them all the time, especially while they're at school. This gives *some* insight while they're at school.
Will you stop going to bloody extremes here? Get off your 'privacy high-horse' for a minute and view the world as it is. Children don't have lots of rights (voting, driving, decisions on their education, the list is endless). There are reasons children don't have these rights. They're not old enough to make these decisions on their own. And you're telling me that they're adult enough to surf the web unwatched while at school?
Basic human decency. You don't stand over your kid while they're using they're making a bowel movement. You don't stand over them when they're urinating. You don't stand over them while they're showering.
You don't? How did you get toilet trained? Were you ever bathed by your parents or did they just give you a hose and put you in the back yard?
You *do* watch everything a child does, to the best of your ability. While you were out playing in the yard I'd bet your mother *was* watching you . She may not have told you, but she probably kept a closer eye on you than you think. Ask her sometime.
What message do you honestly think you're sending by intensely scrutinizing them when they sit at a computer?
That they'd better be careful? That if they do anything wrong you'll take corrective actions?
What message do you send the child (remember, these are *children*) by NOT watching them? That anything they do is okay?
You're indirectly telling them that the computer is the most important part of their life. Then you want to moan and complain around the water cooler that they don't take in interest in the things that you did when you were a child.
I don't even know what you mean by this. What was I bitching and moaning about?
Basic human rights? What $DIETY given right is it for a child to surf the internet and use public computers without being monitored? I must have missed that one in the Constitution...
Oh for chrissakes. The original poster was monitoring children in a classroom. Children! Children are supposed to be monitored. You want an 11-year old going to images.google.com and typing in this new word 'lesbian' he's heard so much of (in Massachusetts at least)? We all know what's going to come up, and it's a bit more educational that many would like.
What if the childs surfing for porn? Emailing a friend about commiting suicide? Chatting with perverts? Planning a murder of a teacher? You think these things aren't done?
What's coming to this country when 11-year olds have a "right to privacy"? What kind of parent puts that much faith in a child? Hell, why bother parenting at all then?
Microsoft (and a good chunk of their employees) reside in her district. Speaking as a Washington voter, she's expected to represent her constituents' interests, no?
Ahh, but does not Microsoft exist in the United States as well? And given that this is an 'international' issue, is it that surprising that a federal office makes a statement (for the same reasons)?
I bet we'd see the same from another nation if we imposed a penalty on a company from their nation. It's all just politics. No action was taken.
We have Saturday Night Live, but it's gotten rotten over the years.
I can't believe as a Canadian you left out the Kids in the Halls though! Fantastic show if there ever was one. Never heard of This Hour has 22 Minutes...
Dude, you're a hoot. Some of the mistakes you've been finding *are* deliberate, some aren't. Yes, the missing 'e' was deliberate. But what the fuck do I care? I'm sorta curious as to why the fuck you care. But in the end, its much more fun to annoy you. Whether it's on purpose or its not.:-)
Insult me all you like fucknuts! At least I'm not anal enough to go search out some guys web-site and check it for grammar... Christ, you need a woman. Bad. Seriously. Even if you have to pay dude.
People tend to forget that 'RedHat' and 'Debian' are much more than just an OS. They issue security reports for a webserver, several databases, ssh server, etc. Much more software is available through a Linux vendor. I doubt Microsoft even included it's other product lines in those security alerts their counting.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah, you accuse me of fallacy (which is the only reason I responded to begin with), and you setup straw men. The real argument is whether or not abortion (I'll use your term) is killing (no appeal to emotion here buddy) a living human being. If it *is* killing a living human being, then it should be illegal. If not, then it isn't, nor can it be, murder. Stop splitting hairs with me here please.
We both know that the definition of Murder is (oddly enough) malleable in this regard. In fact, there is currently legal hearings going on in some state (can't remember which) as to whether killing a fetus through abuse of a pregnant woman counts as murder. So don't tell me that the definition of murder is so etched in stone lest you should look like a "screeching moron" (gawd I'm starting to hate slashdotters...).
I believe that a fetus is a living human being, from inception on. Therefore, in my mind, it is rightly called murder if you kill it without a trial and court order (a fetus commited of capital crime?).
You believe, I'm guessing, that it becomes a human being at some arbitrary point in it's development? Thus it is not murder to 'abort' it. Or perhaps you actually have no true opinion, and just blindly follow the letter of the law in this case? You've not said, you've only bitched about my use of the word murder.
That clear things up?
Heh. I guess it's more up to how the town implements casinos rather than the casinos themselves. However, the fact that one must be careful about allowing casinos suggests an inherent danger to them...
And keep in mind that when we talk about gambling we are talking about online gambling. Area crime is not an issue.
But look at what just having some states with gambling legal has done? Neighboring states are under pressure to leagalize it as well. If the US states that gambling is legal on-line then the pressure will only increase. Individual states will have a harder time holding it back.
Appeal to Emotion. Fallacy. You lose the argument after one sentence. Or do you think people who kill others should he held for "first degree abortion"?
How dare you? You can call killing a fetus anything you like, but from where I come it's called murder. Abortion is simply the nice term for it when it's an unborn baby.
According to dictionary.com:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Where does it say 'so long as they are a certain age'?
You cannot reinvent the defintion of common words in the language of your choice as "evidence".
I didn't think I reinvented anything... Just because you're cold-hearted towards infants and fetuses, doesn't mean I am.
I'll ignore the abortion bit, just to keep on topic. :-)
And anyway, what does this have to do with online casinos? Online casinos solve the location problem pretty easily, don't you think?
The push to allow gambling in-state will be stronger. Not to mention there will be a precedent set by the Federal government that gambling is legal. I'd bet that states will have a harder time keeping it illegal.
sure.
Did I say internet gambling raised crim? No.
My *point* was that not all decisions are made based on religious reasons. If gambling is not legal in a state, but is legal on the internet *from* that state, this represents a huge loop-hole... At some point the states will push back, or there will be pushes to allow it on-shore. Allowing internet gambling will set a precedent...
premature ending of pregnancy.
You mean murder? Not everybody against murdering fetuses is against it for religious reasons. Not to mention a few other vices you mention in your little rant.
Gambling is legal in some areas. But nobody wants the casinos near their house. Got any ideas why? (hint: crime rates sky-rocket around a casino). This is a big issue in Massachusetts lately. Some people want the casinos as a way to increase state revenue, but they can't find any town willing to allow a casino.
Often overreaction and misinterpretation are used to further personal agendas or even vendettas. How many scapegoats (on one side) and poster children (on the other) does it take to promote a local politician to state Senator?
That's a very good point. Often times a 'loner' or 'unusual child' is held up as something inherently wrong for no greater reason than he/she looks different. However, I think the over-reaction is bad, whereas the original act of monitoring is not. Like all the discussions here about how P2P is legal, but sharing illegal things is not. I'd like to see something in the 'contract' signed that says any information gathered is the property of the child's parents, and not the school.
Tell me, how did parents control the web-browsing habits of children in the 1700's? If it didn't exist, there was no *need* to monitor it...
I actually rather agree with you on the trust angle. You seem to think I wish to key log everything and then rummage through it every night to see what dirt a child is doing... I'm saying that in the case of the schools doing it, it's their way of letting children know they're being watched so they'd better not do anything wrong. And if the school happens to find something disturbing (picture two students IM'ing each other about another school massacre), they can react on it.
I never said 'rely on the keystroke logger'. Where did you read that? It's "yet another tool" for parents. You can't watch them all the time, especially while they're at school. This gives *some* insight while they're at school.
Will you stop going to bloody extremes here? Get off your 'privacy high-horse' for a minute and view the world as it is. Children don't have lots of rights (voting, driving, decisions on their education, the list is endless). There are reasons children don't have these rights. They're not old enough to make these decisions on their own. And you're telling me that they're adult enough to surf the web unwatched while at school?
Basic human decency. You don't stand over your kid while they're using they're making a bowel movement. You don't stand over them when they're urinating. You don't stand over them while they're showering.
You don't? How did you get toilet trained? Were you ever bathed by your parents or did they just give you a hose and put you in the back yard?
You *do* watch everything a child does, to the best of your ability. While you were out playing in the yard I'd bet your mother *was* watching you . She may not have told you, but she probably kept a closer eye on you than you think. Ask her sometime.
What message do you honestly think you're sending by intensely scrutinizing them when they sit at a computer?
That they'd better be careful? That if they do anything wrong you'll take corrective actions?
What message do you send the child (remember, these are *children*) by NOT watching them? That anything they do is okay?
You're indirectly telling them that the computer is the most important part of their life. Then you want to moan and complain around the water cooler that they don't take in interest in the things that you did when you were a child.
I don't even know what you mean by this. What was I bitching and moaning about?
Basic human rights? What $DIETY given right is it for a child to surf the internet and use public computers without being monitored? I must have missed that one in the Constitution...
Oh for chrissakes. The original poster was monitoring children in a classroom. Children! Children are supposed to be monitored. You want an 11-year old going to images.google.com and typing in this new word 'lesbian' he's heard so much of (in Massachusetts at least)? We all know what's going to come up, and it's a bit more educational that many would like.
What if the childs surfing for porn? Emailing a friend about commiting suicide? Chatting with perverts? Planning a murder of a teacher? You think these things aren't done?
What's coming to this country when 11-year olds have a "right to privacy"? What kind of parent puts that much faith in a child? Hell, why bother parenting at all then?
This is just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
How? The students signed a paper saying they know they are monitored.
But this is getting way off topic now.
Microsoft (and a good chunk of their employees) reside in her district. Speaking as a Washington voter, she's expected to represent her constituents' interests, no?
Ahh, but does not Microsoft exist in the United States as well? And given that this is an 'international' issue, is it that surprising that a federal office makes a statement (for the same reasons)?
I bet we'd see the same from another nation if we imposed a penalty on a company from their nation. It's all just politics. No action was taken.
http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=219442
Go on though. You were saying something funny about Democrats?
We have Saturday Night Live, but it's gotten rotten over the years.
I can't believe as a Canadian you left out the Kids in the Halls though! Fantastic show if there ever was one. Never heard of This Hour has 22 Minutes...
*rofl*
:-)
Dude, you're a hoot. Some of the mistakes you've been finding *are* deliberate, some aren't. Yes, the missing 'e' was deliberate. But what the fuck do I care? I'm sorta curious as to why the fuck you care. But in the end, its much more fun to annoy you. Whether it's on purpose or its not.
Insult me all you like fucknuts! At least I'm not anal enough to go search out some guys web-site and check it for grammar... Christ, you need a woman. Bad. Seriously. Even if you have to pay dude.
I can find your other messages too.
Oh, right. Dipshit.
Yay!
Now your an obsessive moron! (find the missing ' please?)
Whoohoo!
That would be 'Eurotrash'. Dipshit.
Fantastic! You relize that your Eurotrash! Yay!
Now, I know these ones will be easy...
Oh, and for the record: I live in the USA. Dipshit.
Funny. You *do* know how to 'lie down' then? Seeing as you're continuing this just as much as I am?
Dipshit.
So you're not Eruotrash. I guess you *do* have that going for you. Must be killer with the ladies.
*rofl*
Lets see if the Eurotrash can spot the problem with this reply!
God, your such a prick!
Should be an easy one...
Troll? I'll bite...
People tend to forget that 'RedHat' and 'Debian' are much more than just an OS. They issue security reports for a webserver, several databases, ssh server, etc. Much more software is available through a Linux vendor. I doubt Microsoft even included it's other product lines in those security alerts their counting.